Lets define PROCREATIVE - once and for all

[Warrior1979]

The only thing that using NFP adds to the equation is the conscious knowledge of which time is which. That knowledge cannot change a morally acceptable act (either marital sex or marital abstinence) into a morally unacceptable one.

Knowledge, per se, doesn’t, but acting upon it does, notably its use to avoid having children. If it didn’t, then placing conditions upon the use of NFP would be entirely unnecessary.

 

[Debora123]

Knowledge, per se, doesn’t, but acting upon it does, notably its use to avoid having children.** If it didn’t, then placing conditions upon the use of NFP would be entirely unnecessary.**

This is true.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Also, you speak of the faculties of procreation as having to be present for the act to be ordered per se to procreation. Is the egg not considered a “faculty of procreation?” Because we all know the egg is not present when we use NFP to avoid pregnancy, and we specifically and purposely have sex ONLY on the times that we know that this certain faculty of procreation (egg) is not present.

A faculty is a capability, therefore no, the egg is not a ‘faculty of procreation’. ahs’s definition is likely referring to faculties like giving (male) and receiving (female).

 

[jilly4ski]

Knowledge, per se, doesn’t, but acting upon it does, notably its use to avoid having children. If it didn’t, then placing conditions upon the use of NFP would be entirely unnecessary.

No, the knowledge does not make the act itself sinful. It is the selfishness, lack or trust in God, etc which becomes sinful in the context of the marital act . So (in my opinion) the sin of contraception and the sin of misusing NFP are different sins. (Though no different in culpability).

 

[ahs]

A faculty is a capability, therefore no, the egg is not a ‘faculty of procreation’. ahs’s definition is likely referring to faculties like giving (male) and receiving (female).

Yeah, I wish I say that was the case, but the truth is that I misused the word “faculty”. I was referring to the organs themselves.

But “faculty” in it’s correct use makes sense in my explanation as well. As the does the replacement of “faculty” with “the organs”. No the egg is not a reproductive organ. It is the product of one of the organs (the ovary). An no, I don’t think it matters if the egg is present or not, as long as the couple did not actively remove the egg or manipulate it, or manipulate the organ (ovary in that case) to prevent it from releasing the egg. If the egg is not present due to natural function of the ovary, the ovary is still present and ordered per se to procreation because the opportunity is still there for the potential release of an egg, although unlikely.

From what we can understand in the Church’s teaching as long as the sex organs and there functions are presented in their entirety, without having been manipulated by chemical means, physcial removal or alteration, or barriers placed upon them, then the act is ordered per se to procreation. So, whether the egg is present or not doesn’t matter unless the egg was purposefully manipulated/removed by chemical or physical means, or a barier was placed upon it.

**The egg is not present during ANY sexual act that is engaged in outside of ovulation, regardless of whether a person is using NFP or not.
**

**I have not seen any Church teaching so far that condemns the timing of sexual intercourse. **I’m willing to search, though…can you point me to a good starting point?

And again, I think the Church has spelled this out clearly for us, but it is not a simple sentence or two. Look again at what the Pope says in Bookcat’s post…and that is just a brief summary.

 

[Warrior1979]

No, the knowledge does not make the act itself sinful. It is the selfishness, lack or trust in God, etc which becomes sinful in the context of the marital act . So (in my opinion) the sin of contraception and the sin of misusing NFP are different sins. (Though no different in culpability).

I made no reference to contraception, so I have no idea why you brought it up.

 

[jilly4ski]

I made no reference to contraception, so I have no idea why you brought it up.

As comparison. And to illustrate that it isn’t the act that becomes disordered but rather our intentions. Thus knowledge does not charge the procreative nature of the act. Contraception disorders the act, but the knowledge of NFP does not disorder the act, but it could lead to disordered intentions.

 

[Debora123]

Blahhh, these discussions always make me so

I tired to limit this thread to be about one definitive answer to one specific question (the meaning of a word), but even that is all complicated and twisted and without strong basis.

Anyhow, thanks to all who participated.

God Bless!

 

[ahs]

Blahhh, these discussions always make me so

I tired to limit this thread to be about one definitive answer to one specific question (the meaning of a word), but even that is all complicated and twisted and without strong basis.

Anyhow, thanks to all who participated.

God Bless!

Sorry if I contributed to the confusion. But that’s kinda my point I was trying ot make. The Church’s definition isn’t that simple. The best and most detailed definition I could find for “procreative” is found in Humanae Vitae…the entire encyclical.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Blahhh, these discussions always make me so

I tired to limit this thread to be about one definitive answer to one specific question (the meaning of a word), but even that is all complicated and twisted and without strong basis.

Anyhow, thanks to all who participated.

God Bless!

Maybe read something by either Alice VonHildebrand or Dietrich Von Hildebrand.

They did a good job defending the Church’s stance on contraception.

I seem to be failing you.

 

[sw85]

Blahhh, these discussions always make me so

I tired to limit this thread to be about one definitive answer to one specific question (the meaning of a word), but even that is all complicated and twisted and without strong basis.

Anyhow, thanks to all who participated.

God Bless!

Well, the meaning of the word “procreation” is not terribly important here, which is why I for one didn’t focus on it. What matters is “procreation” within the context of the phrase “ordered per se toward procreation,” which means “objectively capable of procreation,” which means “in a manner consistent with the end of procreation.” Which pretty definitively rules out contraception, and any sexual act that doesn’t include intravaginal ejaculation.

 

[jilly4ski]

I guess I am confused about the resistance to the Church’s definition. It is standard practice in any scientific, philosophical, and theology paper, study, etc. to define the terms specifically to what you mean it to be. You can’t just throw out terms and use them when you mean something precise and there is more than one definition or even connotations. Yes, it is different than the standard dictionary definition, but that is because it is used in the context of a complex theological and philosophical discussion.

 

[Warrior1979]

Contraception disorders the act, but the knowledge of NFP does not disorder the act, but it could lead to disordered intentions.

You’re comparing apples to orange. Just as knowledge does not disorder the act, neither does the knowledge of contraception. Obviously the use of each is considered different, but even the use of NFP doesn’t get the free pass that everyone wants to give it. Reading this forum makes me believe every Catholic not contracepting has serious reasons to avoid having children.

 

[Warrior1979]

Blahhh, these discussions always make me so

Sorry.

 

[jilly4ski]

You’re comparing apples to orange. Just as knowledge does not disorder the act, neither does the knowledge of contraception. Obviously the use of each is considered different, but even the use of NFP doesn’t get the free pass that everyone wants to give it. Reading this forum makes me believe every Catholic not contracepting has serious reasons to avoid having children.

Obviously knowledge of contraception doesn’t disorder the act, the actual contraception disorders the act.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Yeah, I wish I say that was the case, but the truth is that I misused the word “faculty”. I was referring to the organs themselves.

ahs, you’re a good apologist.

It’s important to keep our definitions inclusive. I have a Catholic friend who recently had a medically necessary hysterectomy. She and her husband are still able to have licit marital relations, so the marital embrace can still be procreative without all the organs present. This couple’s embrace is still ‘the act that makes a baby’. Thier faculties to give and recieve are still intact.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Blahhh, these discussions always make me so

I tired to limit this thread to be about one definitive answer to one specific question (the meaning of a word), but even that is all complicated and twisted and without strong basis.

That’s why I kept it super simple for you. ‘Procreative’, in Catholic teaching, literally means ‘favouring creation’. Try looking at it in physical terms.

Then again, maybe you’ve left the thread…

 

[ahs]

ahs, you’re a good apologist.

It’s important to keep our definitions inclusive. I have a Catholic friend who recently had a medically necessary hysterectomy. She and her husband are still able to have licit marital relations, so the marital embrace can still be procreative without all the organs present. This couple’s embrace is still ‘the act that makes a baby’. Thier faculties to give and recieve are still intact.

Thanks for coaching me and helping me understand it better. I still have a lot to learn as far as understanding goes (and basic definition apparently ).

 

[Good_Daughter]

Thanks for coaching me and helping me understand it better. I still have a lot to learn as far as understanding goes (and basic definition apparently ).

I’m just throwing in my two cents worth. I’ve read enough of your posts to know that I could learn plenty from you.